4 ms·

The study is not so easy to slag off; this is 6 percent of guys saying that their encounters fit the definition of rape and that they do it over and over again.

by kaitai 12y ago

The study is not so easy to slag off; this is 6 percent of guys saying that their encounters fit the definition of rape and that they do it over and over again. It is remarkable that I've talked to a number of guys who wouldn't have sex with a girlfriend so drunk she can't consent, but these special guys manage to do it on average 5.8 times each and are fine admitting it. If you just happen to keep getting your "girlfriends" so drunk they can't consent and then having sex with them -- a new one every few months -- don't you think there's something wrong with your relationship patterns? Why defend that?

oldmanjay 12y ago
silly question - were the men also drunk and did the women obtain consent from them? or did the study approach this from the point of view that men have all the responsibility in sexual encounters?
mpweiher 12y ago
>this is 6 percent of guys saying that their encounters fit the definition of rape But that definition is ridiculously broad, criminalizing a large part of normal sexual behavior, and also one-sided, in that two drunk people having sex means the guy is at fault.
peterwwillis 12y ago
I have not and do not defend anyone for their actions, whatever they are, consensual or not. I am responding to a flawed statistical model. You're free to judge whomever you want, though, including people who respond to flawed statistical models. You're also free to essentially accuse me of defending quasi-rapists just because I find a statistical model flawed. It's a free country, after all. "Can't consent" is different than "lack of consent", which is different than "consenting", etc. Consent is a highly varied and complex subject. There's explicit consent, implicit consent, informed consent, implied consent, non-consent, consent agreement violation, consensual non-consent, re-established consent, etc etc. Legally speaking (Note that I am not a lawyer) in America, there's very few laws that determine what is consensual or not. Usually it has to be determined by a jury when it goes to trial. It's because of this that, legally speaking, having alcohol does not alone remove the ability to consent in all cases. Non-legally-speaking, I think you missed my original point. Nowhere in my commentary, nor in the study, does it say that anyone was actually intoxicated past the point of being able to consent. It merely says that within the legal framework someone could have been held liable for non-consensual sex. All this requires is that the person was intoxicated (about .08 BAC, or 1 beer, in the US). If you feel like condemning people for this, so be it. All i'm saying is a study that generalizes based on guidelines like this is flawed, amongst other things.

by kaitai 12y ago

oldmanjay 12y ago

silly question - were the men also drunk and did the women obtain consent from them? or did the study approach this from the point of view that men have all the responsibility in sexual encounters?

mpweiher 12y ago

>this is 6 percent of guys saying that their encounters fit the definition of rape But that definition is ridiculously broad, criminalizing a large part of normal sexual behavior, and also one-sided, in that two drunk people having sex means the guy is at fault.

peterwwillis 12y ago

I have not and do not defend anyone for their actions, whatever they are, consensual or not. I am responding to a flawed statistical model. You're free to judge whomever you want, though, including people who respond to flawed statistical models. You're also free to essentially accuse me of defending quasi-rapists just because I find a statistical model flawed. It's a free country, after all. "Can't consent" is different than "lack of consent", which is different than "consenting", etc. Consent is a highly varied and complex subject. There's explicit consent, implicit consent, informed consent, implied consent, non-consent, consent agreement violation, consensual non-consent, re-established consent, etc etc. Legally speaking (Note that I am not a lawyer) in America, there's very few laws that determine what is consensual or not. Usually it has to be determined by a jury when it goes to trial. It's because of this that, legally speaking, having alcohol does not alone remove the ability to consent in all cases. Non-legally-speaking, I think you missed my original point. Nowhere in my commentary, nor in the study, does it say that anyone was actually intoxicated past the point of being able to consent. It merely says that within the legal framework someone could have been held liable for non-consensual sex. All this requires is that the person was intoxicated (about .08 BAC, or 1 beer, in the US). If you feel like condemning people for this, so be it. All i'm saying is a study that generalizes based on guidelines like this is flawed, amongst other things.